I would say that, if this had happened under Clinton, the story would have been front page EVERYWHERE - long ago.

In any case, the NYT story you mention is from the previous day, and is merely the story that the Justice Dept. has decided to investigate. The Post story is new news, and confirms that this really happened.

It stinks. It really stinks.

If the story gains traction through other sources, then I will take a look. Other than that, it just looks like more posturing and background noise in the run up to 2004.

I give it less attention than I do to Kucinich complaining about mind control satellites.

The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak. I don't think they would have bothered to do that if Plame were not an undercover agent. This is the important context that should not be overlooked.

The fact that the CIA has asked for the investigation shows that the outing was in fact significant. They wouldn't have passed it to DOJ if Plame worked in the cafeteria.

But what's criminal in a different sense, and incomprehensible, is why the WH or anyone close to it would get involved in a personal battle with Wilson instead of just pointing out how irrelevant his criticisms were. The State of the Union passage relating to Iraqi uranium shopping efforts in Africa referred to a British assessment (in turn based on the work of another intel agency, probably the French), which the Brits have stated did not take any account of the allegedly forged letter on Niger that was the hook of Wilson's story. Forged Niger letter or no, the SOTU language stands or falls on completely separate material, which neither Wilson or anyone else has (publicly) laid a glove on.

In fact, both PM Blair and a parliamentary panel have publicly stood by the UK assessment over the last several months. Perhaps the assessment is wrong -- but no one has publicly given reasons to think so. Yet MSNBC and AP and others routinely call the Africa/uranium report "discredited" -- without any basis whatever. A pretty enlightening example of current levels of editorial integrity and competence.

So why bother to attack Wilson at all? Why not just point out that his criticism is irrelevant, as it fails to address the basis for the SOTU language (Brit/French intel assessment) or the issue itself? It's hard to decide which is more troubling -- the alleged outrage of leaking classified info, or the proven outrage of failing to debunk "criticism" that is at variance with publicly known facts.

Separate issue: why and how would anyone in the WH -- especially the political shop -- have any idea whether or not Wilson's spouse was a CIA employee -- clandestine or declared? I don't believe people in the WH or NSC normally have any access to such info. It's not as though there's a staff phone book they can just peak into. No one is remarking on this, but to me it's the oddest aspect of all.

---